NDP now favoured in new polls and seat projection

It was quite a two weeks to be away, as it featured some of the most dramatic swings in voting intentions we've seen since the immediate aftermath of Justin Trudeau's Liberal leadership victory. Coupled with the NDP's surge into first place in every poll conducted by a gaggle of pollsters using every methodology under the sun was the return of Gilles Duceppe as leader of the Bloc Québécois, jarring the race in Quebec as well.

The NDP now leads in the poll average with 32.4%, an increase of over three points since the pre-hiatus projection update. The Conservatives have dropped a little more than one point to 28.9%, while the Liberals are down a little less than one point to 27.4%. The Bloc has moved ahead of the Greens with 5.2% to 4.9%.

In terms of the seat count, the NDP is now projected to win between 113 and 140 seats, up significantly from the pre-hiatus update which did have the NDP overlapping with the Conservatives but still firmly in second place. The Tories have fallen to between 99 and 141 seats, while the Liberals have dropped to between 71 and 106 seats.

The Bloc is now projected to take between one and five seats, and the Greens are projected to win just one.

While the NDP and Conservatives have a similar high range, the Conservative's low range is 14 seats below that of the New Democrats - and the precise projection puts the NDP at 127 to 114 for the Conservatives. This is the first time that the Conservatives have trailed in the seat projection since the official model was launched at the beginning of the year.

There were quite a few polls released over the two weeks I was away, but their field dates influenced the last five weeks of projections in the model. For instance, the Angus Reid poll that was released while I was away was actually older than the EKOS Research poll that was out on the Friday just before my departure.

So, I've compiled all the numbers in the chart below to give you all a full accounting of how the projection would have looked throughout the month of June. As a reference point, I've included the projection just before the NDP's provincial victory in Alberta, which seems to have been the catalyst for the recent shift in voting intentions.

As you can see, the NDP's numbers were relatively stable over the last week of May and first two weeks of June, after initially surging from the pre-Alberta numbers. But the party has seen been edging up over the last two weeks.

And with the addition of the Angus Reid poll, we can see that the NDP has been leading in the poll average now since the week ending June 8.

This is because the Conservatives have been slipping. The Liberals seem to have contributed to the NDP's surge in May, but since the beginning of the month the NDP has primarily been taking from the Conservatives and Greens. The Tories were at 30.8% and leading in the week ending on June 1, but have since been dropping in every subsequent week. The Greens have taken a hit over the last two weeks, though that might be because of the unusually poor results for the party in the most recent polls by Forum Research and Ipsos Reid.

In terms of the seat ranges, we can see that the Conservatives were comfortably ahead at the beginning of May. They overlapped only slightly with the Liberals, while the NDP was solidly in third.

The NDP did move into second place by the end of May, and were overlapping with the Conservatives more than they were the Liberals. By June 8, the NDP had moved clear of the Liberals and was seriously challenging the Conservatives. By June 22, the NDP and Conservatives were effectively tied in the seat count, and they have since pulled into a far superior position. The Liberals' high range has inched upwards, while the Bloc has gone from end-times-disaster levels to 2011-disaster levels.

Going just by the averages, we see the same sort of story being played out. After dropping, the Liberals are now holding steady as the NDP eats into the Conservatives' seat numbers. Sooner or later, the Tories will need to turn more of their attention on Thomas Mulcair.

The shift over the last two months has been nothing short of incredible. The Conservatives have dropped 29 seats and the Liberals have dropped 20 seats in the projection since the beginning of May. The NDP, meanwhile, has picked up 48 to move into first place.

At these levels of support, the NDP is on track for a plurality of seats. It is interesting to note, though, that the maximum projected total for the NDP is 179 seats, which puts them over the majority mark. Granted, that assumes the NDP has hit about 41% support in voting intentions. But the path to a majority can at least be laid out. The same goes for the Conservatives but not, at this stage, the Liberals.

There are two questions that will be answered over the next few weeks. The first is, of course, whether or not the New Democrats will continue to lead in the polls through to the start of the campaign (official or not, we have to consider August 6 to be the effective start of the campaign as that is when the Maclean's debate will be held).

The second question (a set of them, really) revolves around the Liberals and the Conservatives. Look at the recent set of polls that have been out:

The Conservatives seem to have dropped quite a bit, after routinely polling over 30%. They are now polling in the high-20s, which has put them in a tie with or behind the Liberals in four of the last polls. This is in contrast to the EKOS and Angus polls from earlier in June which suggested that the Liberals were collapsing.

Are the Conservatives going to continue losing support? Did the Liberals hit a rough patch in early June, only to recover over the last few weeks, or were those polls by EKOS and Angus Reid slightly anomalous? Can the Liberals sustain support in the high-20s when the NDP is polling in the mid-30s?

We're in the midst of a period of transition in voting intentions, so it will be very interesting to see where the numbers go from here.

Duceppe: 2011 results in a 2015 context
I would be remiss not to address the shifting landscape in Quebec, which has two factors currently at play. The first being the surge of the NDP, which was felt in Quebec before the change of leadership at the Bloc, and the second being that return by Gilles Duceppe.

There definitely has been some movement that can only be attributed to Duceppe. In the week ending June 8, just before Duceppe returned to lead the Bloc, the party was polling at 17.4%. It is now projected to take 21.4%, its best score since the official model was launched at the beginning of the year and better than any monthly average Mario Beaulieu ever managed. Even two large-sample polls by Léger and CROP put the Bloc at 26% and 25%, respectively.

Still, in terms of the weighted average it is an increase of just four points that can be attributed to Duceppe. And this is still two points below Duceppe's performance in 2011. But despite the poorer showing than that election the model gives the party between one and five seats, potentially matching or surpassing that 2011 performance. The reason for that is simple: the NDP remains the Bloc's main opponent in most ridings in Quebec, and the NDP is averaging 35.1%. That is below the 42.9% of 2011, and so this gives the Bloc a better shot. Every extra point pays out-sized dividends to the Bloc when the NDP is below 40%.

But has Duceppe's return hurt the NDP? That is more difficult to say. The NDP was in the midst of a surge in Quebec when Duceppe made his announcement. In the week ending on June 1, the party was averaging 37.8% in the polls and was well on its way to repeating its 2011 scores. At first glance it appears that Duceppe may have reversed that NDP surge somewhat from the high-30s to the mid-30s, but it is impossible to know for certain. The average for the week ending June 8, before Duceppe's return, put the NDP back down to 35.9% in Quebec.

What can be said with certainty is that both the Liberals and Conservatives are doing worse in Quebec than they were just a few weeks ago. The Liberals were slowly leaking support through to the end of May, but fell steeply over the last few weeks to 23.5%, down from 26% or 27%. The Conservatives, meanwhile, have dropped to 15.8% from 21% at the beginning of May, and from 18% just before Duceppe's return.

The trend lines tell the story that the NDP was making gains at the expense of the Liberals and Conservatives in Quebec after their Alberta victory, and then subsequently the Bloc made gains at the expense of the NDP when Duceppe came back onto the scene (though not nearly enough to erase the gains the NDP had made). Undoubtedly, though, the truth is somewhat more complicated than that, with voters crossing the political spectrum in less direct ways.

These are interesting times, with multiple front campaigns taking place everywhere. The NDP appears to have made its gains at the expense of the Liberals in most parts of the country, and are now starting to eat into Conservative support. The rejuvenated (re-oldinated?) Bloc in Quebec makes for a different dynamic there. Every party needs to start reviewing its strategy with just a few months to go.

112 comments:

If the NDP stay in first place (and especially if they expand their lead), I don't see those Bloc numbers holding. There's going to be a huge bandwagon to give Mulcair as many seats as possible to get a majority or at least a very strong minority.

Finally, you are back! I hope you appreciated your time off and it helped offload and unstress because, for us (or me at least!), it was hard not to comment here!

So, with the new aggregate, my model gives:

126 CPC121 NDP85 LPC5 BQ1 GPC

By region, it is:

Atlantic18 LPC8 CPC6 NDP

Québec54 NDP13 LPC6 CPC5 BQ

Ontario57 CPC37 LPC27 NDP

Prairies12 CPC10 NDP6 LPC

Alberta27 CPC4 NDP3 LPC

British Columbia19 NDP15 CPC7 LPC1 GPC

Territories1 CPC1 NDP1 LPC

It seems the only major difference between our models here is BC. With a difference of +7 seats for the CPC and -4 for the NDP, it's the difference maker between CPC plurality and NDP plurality. The other differences are minor and spread thoughout the other provinces, so you can't point to one clear clahs between our model.

With the sudden change in voting intentions, I think the race for the winner will be more spread throught the whole country than it was lining up to be with Ontario being the make or break between the CPC and the LPC.

Your numbers are quite off for BC. The Conservatives currently have little to no support in any region. Their seat numbers fall in the low single digits while the NDP's will push 30 with the Liberals taking up the balance.

Quebec is very interesting because a couple of percentage points can bring over a dozen seats to the Bloc, it might make the difference between a respectable performance and throwing in the towel to put all the resources into the PQ. The CROP and Leger numbers would put a dent into the NDP if replicated in an election (especially if Leger is right and the NDP/Bloc tie amongst francophones, the NDP might have a lot of wasted anglo support in ridings that the Liberals will mostly win anyway.)

Does anyone here think the Sherbourne declaration will start to be discussed. Would that have much effect on voter intentions, especially if Mr. Mulcair talked one way about it in Quebec, another in ROC?

The Sherbrooke declaration is a non-issue to most Quebecois, the reason is that the QLP, CAQ, PQ and QS all agree on the 50%+1 formula, there is unanimity in Quebec politics on this issue. The Sherbrooke declaration is merely the NDP accepting political reality and the other federal parties remaining in denial. Quite frankly the Clarity act is insultingly paternalistic and undemocratic and I say this as a Quebec anglo.

I doubt that the other provinces still care about separatism anymore, this only remains relevant to a small portion of elderly anglos. Way too much is being made of this.

Both Mulcair and Trudeau brought up the Sherbrooke declaration here and there. But like the comments above said, it lacks traction because Quebec separatism is at an all time low. And the RoC does not care one way or another.

Mulcair recently brought it up to reiterate his support on Quebec issues to address a potential Bloc surge with Duceppe.

Trudeau has on multiple occasions pointed that the NDP's Sherbrooke policy is one of the reasons he cannot work with that party and why the LPC is better suited for governance.

IraYou don't do much for your credibility when you post nonsensical accusations. Both 66% and 50% +1 could be considered equally "democratic" depending on how they came about. The Sherbrooke Declaration is a political document that is a plank in the NDP platform, not a reasonable approach to what would be a highly problematic event on all sides. Given the dynamics of social media, media manipulation and apathy amongst certain groups, it's somewhat irresponsible to simply assert something without consideration of the consequences. But regardless, it doesn't mean the LPC opposes "democratic" secession; just that they want some "clarity" as to what "democratic secession" would look like.

Nowhere in the Clarity Act does the number 66% come up, you just made that up. The clarity act says a clear majority. Is 55% a clear majority? 60%?... The clarity act is ironically unclear. Essentially the federal government said "we'll decide when you've made the decision to separate" without putting a clear number the separatists would have to surpass to get their country. That is undemocratic.

The reasonable approach is to allow the province to come up with the number and they have. All Quebec parties agree that its 50%+ 1. The only provision in the Clarity Act that I agree with is the need for a clear question, as the 95 question was unacceptably unclear.

Anyone who wants some other arbitrary threshold needs to justify that threshold. The Liberal track record on this issue is pretty awful - the Clarity Act is unconscionably vague.

Joining a national (or multinational) group should not be irrevocable. There should be some mechanism by which a province can unilaterally leave Canada. Just as there should be some mechanism by which a country can unilaterally leave the EU. Just as there should be some mechanism by which an American state can unilaterally leave the Union.

If there is some level of government under which a community democratically chooses not to be governed any longer, they should be able to leave.

My initial criticism not only remains, but seems ironically strengthened by your characterization of this as "undemocratic". It's instructive to look at marriage as an example: you seem to believe that only one party will determine the outcome. Not only does that have no legal historical basis, but it will have no meaning practically speaking either. I did not ascribe 66% to the Clarity Act, I just threw it out there as another (largely arbitrary) number that is often used as some sort of a litmus test. The dynamics of secession will, like it or not, be determined by the leadership of the various actors in that play. The numbers are, frankly, virtually irrelevant, since a solid 80% vote on a question that is meaningless, or terribly vague, or simply unworkable is far less convincing than 52%, or 50% +1, or even 47% on a crystal clear question with high response rates and absolutely no coercion. The fact is, should a province decide to secede there will be those who support secession, and a (most probably quite large) group opposed. Then there will be those in the rest of Canada who will want their voices to count for something, inasmuch as the secession affects both parties--even if it's only driven by one.

Even if the federal government puts forth a precise threshold for separation, events might very well cause a federal government overseeing the breakup of the country to renege, or otherwise attempt to stop it. The virtue of the approach of the Clarity Act is that it suggests secession can only occur in a fair, democratic way when a significant majority of a province clearly votes to leave, and does not demean the whole notion by ascribing a thoroughly arbitrary number. as if this is a matter of simple calculation. It is simply an observation of common sense reality that these things could only be determined post facto, rather than in an artificial a priori fashion.

The Sherbrooke Declaration suggests a simplistic formula for the dissolution of a country which owes much to the strategies of 10-year-olds fighting over who gets a bigger piece of cake. It's naive at best, and irresponsible pandering at worst. Breaking up a country can take place at gunpoint, and sadly often has. Or it can take place after thoughtful, deliberate, adult conversation. The Sherbrooke Declaration suggests it would be a far easier thing to do than it could ever be.

Another definition for clear majority I heard is 50%+1 of eligible voters, not those who actually voted. I don't agree with this, as it renders voting No meaningless.

Putting arbitrary thresholds for separation is a no starter for me. If Quebec wants to separate, then they should separate. If Quebecors don't think its in their interest to stay within Canada, then they should separate. The ROC has no say in that at all. None whatsoever!!!

Suggesting that 50%+1 is simplistic , thus not valid is a just a way of imposing your argument without anything to back it up. 50%+1 is universal for majority, thus we have to honour it. Otherwise, we are oppressing the people of Quebec.

Suggesting that 50% +1 is simplistic is the result of using traditional meanings of words to describe things. It IS simplistic, as is suggesting that not using that formula is somehow oppressive to "the people of Quebec". As is the suggestion that the ROC should have no say whatsoever. By your own simplistic analyses, wouldn't Quebec determining unilaterally to breakup Canada be "oppressing the people of Canada"?

Frankly, the notion of a protocol for separation is absurd. If a province - or any other territory anywhere - is going to separate, they will do so, peacefully or violently, and any official mechanism for such a thing is irrelevant. This is a non-issue. If Quebec truly wanted to separate, they would, and negotiations would happen regardless of any poll or vote. Fact is, that's not going to happen in our lifetimes, barring some seriously drastic circumstances.

I don't want Quebec to separate, but I'm not a Quebecor, and my vote means nothing. I can help federalists by helping promote federalism, promote that staying within Canada is good for Quebec, which it is. But this is not the point, the point is that the majority of Quebecors have to believe that for Quebec to stay within Canada. Imagine if we let the ROC decide the fate of Quebec, Quebecors will feel they have no say in their future at all since they are the minority.And views like yours is what invigorates separatism, as they believe that the ROC doesn't care about their choice, only if their choice matches what you want.

What you do here is called Rationalization. Meaning that you start from a specific view point, and find any relevant or irrelevant points to back up your claim. You want Quebec to stay within Canada, whether Quebecors agree or not. That's oppression in my opinion. It's like a marriage, where a partner doesn't wanna let go, do you think the marriage should stay??? If a woman is in an abusive relationship, can't she get out of a marriage??? To make this analogy work here, If ROC decides for some reason to loot Quebec legally. Imposing 100% tax rate, and 100% inheritance tax rate , Can't Quebec say no and separate??? It takes 2 to tango!!!

Nazar,This has nothing to do with what I or anyone wants for Quebec. But, for the record, I am a Quebecer, I have loads of family and friends in Quebec and out of Quebec, and it does matter to me. Your position is based on a naive, simplistic and somewhat arrogant notion regarding how humans behave and communicate. Your argument is not even logically coherent. Follow your own reasoning: if one partner in a marriage "doesn't want to let go" the marriage either remains, the two partners come to a negotiated agreement, or the other partner seeks alternative forms of dissolution, including hightailing it for greener pastures. The latter carries with it no guarantee that the aggrieved partner will not subsequently hunt them down and demand satisfaction, either legally or extra-legally. There is only one way to achieve a lasting settlement: negotiation.

The NDP surge has not sinked the Liberals are bad as I had expected it too. It seems they can still come out with a respectable 90 seats under a NDP plurality.

After months of people saying that the Tories are on the verge of making a come back (Trudeau decline, Quebec gains due to security) it seems like its all tumbling back down again. Now they are poised to lose ground to both the Liberals and NDP.

I'd say of the three parties, the Liberals would have the greatest challenge. The NDP could say the CPC and LPC espouse the same right-wing policies we don't need. The CPC could say the NDP and LPC have the same left-wing policies we don't need. The Liberals tried to lump Harper and Mulcair together on leadership style, but it comes off as a weak argument.

I have this feeling that the Conservatives are not loosing votes to the NDP, they are loosing them to the Liberals.However, soft Liberals are bleeding away to the NDP because they want to be sure of a winner this time.

I can't see strong Conservatives leaving to support the NDP but they would go to the middle of the road Liberals if they can no longer stomach Harper.

Then there are the Liberals who want a winner this time and will do anything to get rid of Harper. I think those are the ones leaving to support Mulcair and the NDP.The NDP election in Alberta opened their eyes.

I think this can explain the fall of the Conservatives, therise of the NDP and the relative stability of the Liberals while all this goes on.

The real movement is in the Liberal party as they both gain from one party but loose to another,

Glen, yours is the more intuitive take, but it seems that events (mainly the Alberta election) of this year have exposed a phenomenon that had been obscured for some time, that is, that in the west anyway, there has been a swing from conservative parties to the NDP (and earlier, in the opposite direction, in Saskatchewan, for example). It seems counter-intuitive, but then lived politics don't sit so easily on a left-right political spectrum as we're often led to believe. I get where Ira is coming from, though, as a far left occasional NDP voter, I'd sooner be shot than vote Conservative myself.

I know my perspective is entirely anecdotal, but having voted for the Tories in 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2011, an am now completely turned off Harper and am strongly looking at Mulcair this time around. For me, Trudeau is a non-starter because of C-51 and I know of several others who feel the same way. To say I am disappointed with Trudeau's stance on this issue is an understatement. While the polling data would indicate that most of the two-way preferences are between the NDP and the Liberals, if I recall correctly more CPC voters had the NDP as their second choice than the Liberals. Knowing this, I think there are more people who have or who are willing to cross from the CPC to the NDP than many people, including those in the Conservative Party war room, may realize.

I think the shift from right to left (and vis versa) that skips stopping in the middle is too often ignored. We saw that in the recent Alberta election. Wildrose voters second choice was more likely to be NDP than PC. Also, NDPers second choice was most likely to be Wildrose, if I recall correctly.

Quote "I think the shift from right to left (and vis versa) that skips stopping in the middle is too often ignored. We saw that in the recent Alberta election. Wildrose voters second choice was more likely to be NDP than PC. Also, NDPers second choice was most likely to be Wildrose, if I recall correctly."...> Only if portion of Wildrose voters second choice was NDP (not all) What I remember from those numbers is it looked like close to 1/4?? of the people did NOT vote on platform but more on who was more likely to defeat the PC's.. In Alberta only the PC's, WildRose, and the NDP had a full slate of candidates.. If a person in Alberta was voting with the primary or even secondary intention of punishing the incumbents, a vote for the green, liberal, or Alberta Party, was not a likely place to park their vote..

Did you check out the list of lesser parties contesting the recent UK election? Canada has so far to go before it's even in the same ball park as the UK for oddball and single-issue political parties...

True. I'm an Ontarian, and there have been elections when I would have voted for the Bloc if it was an option (not because I want Quebec to separate, but because Duceppe was making the most sense on other issues).

Quote "For example, Alberta has very few parties, because it's harder to create and keep them. I think it was only 2 elections ago that the Alberta Green Party accidentally delisted itself."...> that wasnt an accident . it was due to infighting between members..

@Glen, if the trend you posit is real and sustained, it suggests a gradual shift of the LPC centre of gravity to the right, which might well end up effectively causing some vote splitting on the right, especially if the LPC ads start to cater to those conservative refugees. I believe there are many abandonning the CPC not because Harper is too right wing, but because he's no longer percieved as democratic. Those people could tip the LPC to the right if their numbers are sufficient.

Oh, ok. I liked the weekly update as it allows to see very accurately when, and potential why, changes in voting intentions happen. Of course, with fewer news in the summer, by-weekly might be enough though. Thanks for the info!

NDP policy has not been closely examined to date. Trudeau has begun to look critically at the NDP. Harper has yet to do so. The Sherbrooke declaration will not sit well in ROC. Neither will many other NDP policies. At least that is my hope.

In fact, the NDP has always come in for greater criticism than either of the other two parties. Every NDP policy that differs from those of the Cons and Libs has been scoffed at as misguided, irrational, idealisitic, impractical, too soft-hearted, too hard-hearted, etc. Basically, it's been 80 years of flak fired at the CCF-NDP. That has happened precisely because the perceived threat of the party has been taken seriously by the establishment political parties, business and the corporate media. The policies themselves have almost never been rationally analysed/criticised, simply because doing so would expose Conservative and Liberal policies for the cynical corporate-serving deceptions that they are. I expect the amount of flak to increase as we approach election day, but little of it will be substantive, which isn't to say it won't necessarily constitute an effective attack.

It seems since May 4 the NDP got approximately equal 2.5ish slices from the CPC, LPC and Greens. For the Greens that's a loss of one third of their support. We can speculate that a perceived chance to change the government is attracting those Greens.

In Ontario the CPC attack ads have mostly equalised LPC and NDP support. I suspect 58 Ontario seats is the best the CPC can hope for as further erosion of LPC to NDP will swing a disproportionate number of three way races. These races bode to be a major challenge to the model when a couple hundred votes can tilt a seat one way or another.

Speaking as a Conservative supporter these new poll numbers remind me of the Don Cherry Skin Bracer commercial the one where Don is daydreaming that the Russians won the Stanley Cup he then slaps on some Skin Bracer and realized it was a bad dream. Hopefully Canadians will slap themselves in the face before they vote on October 19th

Most Canadians have unfortunately come to the realization that the last 9 years have not been a dream at all, but a horrifying reality. A reality which has seen Canada fall on almost all measures of economic and social standing relative to the rest of the world. Sure, I'm "biased". But I'm not delusional.

Horrifying ........ lol ........ And a European type Socialist type government taking over the purse strings of our economy will certainly lead Canada to a better economic standing just as they have done in Greece, Spain Italy ....... No your not delusional one bit.

HabsThe unfortunate thing about being delusional is that it can't be recognized from within the delusion. So if I were delusional, it's unlikely I'd notice. And it explains why you're not able to recognize your delusions. As others have put it, it's far more about execution than ideology, but as far as ideology goes, the socialist nations of north Europe routinely lead the world on most measures related to standard of living.

I hope that Rachel Notley's time in office will both give her party the credibility it needs to be a credible threat to govern nationwide, and that it will remind Albertans that they don't like taxes and deliver the 2019 election neatly into Wildrose hands.

NDP is Loosing their touch.They Proved as dishonest And has no integrityI have been praising the moves NDP govt has made on Education funding.I however question NDP govt on privatization of Lab Services under their nose. Have the moral compass lost the batteries?This appears to be hypocritical .

The threshold is $125,000, and with a GDP/capita of over $80K (compared to the Canadian average of about $55K), that's not so high.

It's not low, either. I don't currently qualify, and most Albertans don't, but the point of democracy should not be to steal from the minority because they can't stop you. The government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul, and that's not okay.

But Alberta's flat tax was a wonderfully simple system, and with the huge personal exemption it was already progressive.

I completely agree that cronyism was wildly out of control under the PCs. They hadn't been fiscally conservative for many years (not since the price of oil went back up).

A progressive income tax system is not robbing the minority because they can't stop you. It's a systemic acknowlegement that those with higher incomes have more disposable income. The very modest reforms proposed by Notley simply restore the income tax system to what it was under Peter Lougheed, hardly rank collectivism.

it will be telling how the poll numbers in Alberta go with regards to the NDP in the next month.. IE: the 'minimum wage increase'.a.) they will continue to rise as people appreciate a govt that keeps their promises..orb.) will start to go down as more people begin to look seriously at their platform and realize they are planning to keep their promises;-)LOL

I would be very weary of reading too much into the aggregated data provided by 308. Outlier poll results seem to distort the big picture a little to maybe over pronounce certain trends. Given the fluidity and volatility of polls at this point, it would be incredibly injudicious to make presumption regarding Oct 19.

Lets not forget, to expect these numbers and trends to hold strong through the next four months would be to assume that parties will not adapt strategies to changing circumstances.

Absolutely ludicrous would be to think the CPC or LPC will let the NDP go unchallenged into the campaign. Way to early to disregard anyone yet --or crown anyone for that matter.

Considering that several polls from several different polling firms are all showing the same general trend in favour of the NDP, It's a bit foolhardy to say that the aggregate here is 'distorted' by outlier data.

The assertion that 308 can't be taken seriously because of outliers can't go unchallenged. That's precisely WHY we take it and other aggregators seriously - the outliers are balanced out of consideration by the cumulative weight of all the recent polls. Trends show up much more clearly, and while they naturally take longer to manifest - the NDP had been on par with LPC & CPC for weeks before it showed up in the aggregate - when they do they wear the legitimacy of genuine trends, largely immune to the methodological biases and statistical noise that are often evident in individual polls. Informed observers will pay much more attention to a well designed and thorough aggregator like 308 than to individual polls, however well respected the pollster may be.

Forum:Stephen Harper has the approval of 3 in 10 voters (30%) and his net favourable score (approve minus disapprove) is a very negative but stable31. Tom Mulcair continues to enjoy the approval of one half of voters (50%) and his net is a very positive +25. Justin Trudeau has the approval of about 4 in10 (38%) and his net is a neutral -3

EKOS:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s approval rating is sinking fast, according to new polling data from EKOS.Harper’s approval rating is dead last among federal leaders in the new EKOS survey — 62 per cent of those surveyed do not approve of the job he’s been doing, almost double the percentage reporting they approve of him (32 per cent). Compare that with Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, who – even though her approval rating has dropped by six points in recent weeks – is still well ahead of Harper, at 45 per cent.

This is very different from the last election where Harper was always the top scored leader..

*Those* are the numbers people need to look at, as they seem to be directly translating into the poll results we are seeing. So long as Mulcair continues to be viewed as the most favourable choice for Prime Minister, he will have an advantage going into the "formal" election period.

Welcome back Eric. You certainly picked one of the most volatile 2 week periods in recent memory to be away! Just a general comment: what I think we are seeing is the possibility of a "new normal", or perhaps even the lack of a new normal. If that's so, all polls, and even your judicious poll aggregates need to be taken cautiously. Seems to me that between now and the end of the campaign, some critical narrative will dominate, and all of the rest of the numbers will more thank likely follow. It seems unlikely to me that the final outcomes will be nearly as close as they appear to be now.

I'm not sure where Harper is coming from and I think the country may be the same. The difference is that Clark and Mulroney were both "Progressives": and Harper hates them almost as much as he hates the Liberals !!

True enough, though as a product of a merger of the two, I would at least expect it to have retained some broad policy directions. But your right, it's pretty much the Reform party.

Still, I can't imagine too many of the original grassroots reformers are too happy about Harper undermining Parliament, concentrating all the power in the PMO, picking fights with the chief judge of the supreme court, the privacy commissioner, pretty much every watchdog there is, and undermining the charter with a grotesquely excessive piece of paranoid police-state legislation decried by every constitutional expert in the country. Preston Manning would never have done any of those things.

I have to agree with an earlier poster. The NDP is not eating into Conservative support with their increasing poll numbers. They are benefiting from progressive Liberals leaving the Trudeau-led Party which is increasingly seen as little more than Harper-lite. The Liberals, however, are maintaining their level of support with disillusioned CONSERVATIVES , tired of Harper's nasty version of conservatism. The are also benefitting, to a lesser degree, from those Conservatives afraid of an NDP win, but not willing to support Harper (strategic voting rom the Right?).

Justin Trudeau believed he could appeal to both conservative Canadians AND maintain the support of progressive Canadians with his Party's support of Bill C-51 - the Harper Conservatives extreme and anti-democratic "terror" Bill. He was wrong.

That decision was Justin Trudeau's Waterloo and will enter the history books as one of the most damaging decisions made in Canadian politics.

Some of the things you mention run contrary to what Preston Manning and the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance stood for. Both others, like a perceived 'judicial activism' and deep mistrust for the Supreme Court of Canada and the belief that parliament is superior to the Charter are born-and-bred Reform Party values.

In my riding, I was one of only two CPC members that voted against the merger in 2003. We knew that the Alliance would be calling the shots and that left a small minority of us not too thrilled at the prospect.

Some of us were mad at MacKay but in the world of real politik, that takeover by the Alliance was absolutely the thing to do in electoral terms. It was a spectacular success -- I would even argue that without the merger (takeover), Harper probably would never have become prime minister.

In my case, I swallowed it reluctantly and put up with it for another six years. I finally could take no more of the hard right-wing tilt, and left for the Liberals in 2009.

I don't think Preston Manning et all would give a flying f about any of those things as long as they could curtail abortion rights, same-sex marriage and similar rights/issues. And, of course, keep the corporate subsidies in place.

@Nick yes you're right, opposition to percieved "judicial activism" was always a rallying point for Reformers - my point wasn't that Manning would have unswervingly supported the decisions of the supreme court, but that he would not have tried to underhandedly discredit the chief judge - his opposition would have been principled, I have no doubt.@Ronald O'Dowd I sympathize; I suspect the those like yourself - fiscal conservatives that turned away by Harper's excess - number far higher than pundits tend to assume. I imagine if he loses and retires and is replaced by a moderate conservative many like yourself would return to the fold. But if he loses badly it will leave only a hard right rump from very conservative ridings that resisted the winds of change, and that caucus would likely select another hard-right idealogue (cf Ontario Tories after the Davis sweep in 87 => Mike Harris)

5 weeks to go - August 6th - Debate 1........................The first debate will be the most pivotal of them all, istm. It will serve to firm up or shift Liberal soft support - the third party leader must be seen to hold his own among the two leading heavyweight debators Harper and Mulcair. A failure to do so will create the next significant opportunity for an additional bump in support to the NDP. Consequently relegating the LPC to a firm grip on third party status, while waiting to face Debate 2.

Comparatively, the CPC's second place leader has demonstrated there is little to no room for growth, as it slides in support.

Going in to Debate 1, Mulcair and the NDP have the most at risk - their surge will stall if there is a perceived stumble and/or weak performance.

Like most @308, I look forward to post Debate1 polling results; August 15 or there-abouts ?

Welcome back; I hope you enjoyed your break, and are ready to now take on the final stretch of our new U.S.-style endless campaign.

"...since the beginning of the month the NDP has primarily been taking from the Conservatives and Greens..." I feel this is an illustration of a point many pundits and bloggers fail to recognize: that Canadian voters are highly non-ideological in their voting intentions. Nobody who has ever taken a political science class would ever consider a swing from the HarperCons to the NDP, even the moderate incrementalist NDP of the recent Layton-Mulcair era. But very few Canadians have ever taken such a class, and most look at politics from a very pragmatic, leader-focused perspective. Many voters, in fact, have trouble distinguishing different levels of government when discussing policy issues, confusing federal, provincial and even municipal responsibilities.

It is for these reasons that I feel unite the left/right (as applicable) is a misguided idea: most Canadians don't think like that.

In addition, while I strongly support electoral reform in principle to get rid of FPTP, sadly every time any alternative to FPTP has been placed before voters in this country, it has been soundly rejected.

The NDP was certainly my second choice. Though this last election in Alberta might not be the best measure of that, given the widespread loathing of the governing party. For many people, any other party would have been a step up.

" every time any alternative to FPTP has been placed before voters in this country, it has been soundly rejected."

Incorrect. In the first BC electoral reform referendum of 2005, over 57% of voters supported the BC-STV system. And 77 of 79 electoral districts voted 50%+1 for it. It was an arbitrary - and possibly unconstitutional - threshold of 60% with no provision for an overwhelming number of districts in favour to reduce that number - that caused the system not to be implemented. Not the vote itself.

Also, had the vote been with a ranked ballot, then the "No" votes from persons who preferred MMP to STV and voted "No" in hopes of getting a new referendum on MMP, would have failed over to STV rather than to the status quo. That alone could have pushed the vote above 60% as there were some very prominent factions (notably the Green Party of BC leadership) that preferred MMP. Certainly enough to cause a 3% vote slip.

The second referendum in BC and why the results were so different, is another topic. But it's false to say that electoral reform itself was always rejected.

The 2005 vote should have been the beginning of serious change in elections in Canada, but the 60% threshold and lack of a ranking of various systems in that vote and lack of any slack in that threshold for a system overwhelmingly supported by the electoral districts, plus the clearly unethical position of some MMP supporters who delayed all change in order to get a change that might benefit themselves more, add up to a conspiracy against the public interest.

Other countries have not had such high thresholds for change and they have also given some power to their legislatures to implement partial changes if there is a near-miss.

Harper and Manning disagreed on a great many things. That's why Harper left the party in 1997. Harper is an ideological conservative, while Manning was a populist. Manning created the Reform Party because he thought the West's voice wasn't being heard, and he later expanded east because he thought the rest of Canada was being lied to.

Yes, I agree. Manning is also something of a policy wonk, certainly much moreso than Harper, a steely Machiavellian at best. Manning's published work, his institutional and academic involvement since leaving politics all speak of someone who wants to fix government, a noble intention whether or not you agree with him on the specifics. I'm still looking for any hint of a noble intention in Harper.

Agreed. Preston Manning since leaving politics looks a lot like Joe Clark, a neutral policy voice with some experience that didn't get enough of a listen, and got his party taken over by people of much lower ethical standards.

Yeah, it's always interesting the kind of person that emerges when a politician retires and sheds the partisan spin. Almost everyone turns out to be more human and more likeable than their situation allowed them to be while politically active. Manning and Clark seemed to particularly enjoy cutting loose from politics, while retaining a keen interest in policy. Bob Rae was like that too.

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.

Details on the methodology of the poll aggregation and seat projections are available here and here. Methodology for the forecasting model used during election campaigns is available here.

Projections on this site are subject to the margins of error of the opinion polls included in the model, as well as the unpredictable nature of politics at the riding level. The degree of uncertainty in the projections is also reflected by the projections' high and low ranges, when noted.

ThreeHundredEight.com is a non-partisan site and is committed to reporting on polls responsibly.